Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana High Court refused to grant protection to a married couple who entered into a live-in relationship, leaving their respective spouses behind. The court said merely because two persons are living together for a few days, their claim of live-in relationship based upon bald averment may not be enough to hold that they are truly in a live-in-relationship. The court observed that directing the police to grant protection to such couples may indirectly give our assent to such illicit relationships. The court was also of the view that being a diverse country, marriage as social tie is an essential pillar of the Indian society.“Marriage is a holy relationship with legal consequences and great social esteem. Our country, with its deep cultural origins, places a significant emphasis on morals and ethical reasoning. However, as time has passed, we have begun to adopt Western culture, which is vastly different from Indian culture. A portion of India appears to have adopted a modern lifestyle, namely, the live-in relationship,” observed Justice Sandeep Maudgil.Justice Sandeep Moudgil refused protection to "live-in relationship" couples and observed, "A live-in-relationship between a married man and a woman or a married woman with a man is not akin to marriage, as it amounts to adultery and bigamy, which is unlawful. Therefore, such woman are not entitled to any protection under the DV Act."The Punjab and Haryana High Court observed that married couples who run away from their parental homes to be in live-in relationships are bringing a "bad name" to their parents and also violate the right of the parents to live with dignity.
What Was The Case?The court was hearing a case of Petitioner No.1 (woman), over 40 years old, and Petitioner No. 2 (man), over 44 years old, were already married and had children too. The woman had taken a divorce but the man was still married and had children. Both the petitioners developed a liking for each other and wanted to have a live-in-relationship, but their family members were allegedly issuing threats to their life as they were totally against their relationship. Dismissing their plea for protection, Justice Maudgil held that all live-in-relationships are not relationships in the nature of marriage. The petitioners’ relationships, therefore, are not a relationship in the nature of marriage because it has no inherent or essential characteristic of a marriage, but a relationship other than in the nature of marriage.The Court opined, that "the petitioners being fully aware of the fact that the both of them being married earlier could not have entered into a live-in relationship. Further the petitioner no. 2 has not taken divorce from his earlier wife. All live-in-relationships are not relationships in the nature of marriage. Petitioners' relationships, therefore, not a relationship in the nature of marriage because it has no inherent or essential characteristic of a marriage, but a relationship other than in the nature of marriage and the petitioner no. 1 status is lower than the status of a wife and that relationship would not fall within the definition of domestic relationship under [Section 2(f) of the DV Act."'The court was also of the view that if this a relationship in the nature of a marriage, it will be doing an injustice to the wife and children who opposed that relationship.Referring to the petitioners who were already married, the Court said, "If this Court holds that the relationship between the petitioner no.1 and petitioner no. 2 is a relationship in the nature of a marriage, we will be doing an injustice to the wife and children who opposed that relationship."In this case, the Court rejected to grant the relief of protection. However, it added that, "if the petitioners moves the police authorities showing that they have genuine grievance or threat to their life, the police authority may do the needful after verification of all the facts as narrated by them in their representation."You may also like
AAP's 'Don't Underestimate' Message To Congress Amid Impasse In Alliance Talks For Haryana Polls
Sara Ali Khan's Gorgeous Lehenga for Ambani's Ganesh Chaturthi Celebrations Is Made from Vintage Brocade Saris
Surat claims top spot in India's air quality rankings
Rallies, demonstrations continue in Kolkata over medic's rape-murder